MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403658312 · doi:10.1002/jac5.2034

Restrictions on pharmacist dispensing of mifepristone remain a hard pill to swallow

2024· article· en· W4403658312 on OpenAlex
Kelli Boyden, Randy C. Hatton, Catherine Lynch, David B. Brushwood

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJACCP JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CLINICAL PHARMACY · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical studies and practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMifepristonePillPharmacistMedicinePharmacyFamily medicinePharmacologyBiologyPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This analysis explores the basis for the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requiring a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) for mifepristone for the termination of intrauterine pregnancy. Controversies surround mifepristone and its REMS. The safety and efficacy of mifepristone are briefly reviewed with respect to FDA's actions. It is difficult to justify the continued requirement for a REMS for mifepristone by applying the regulatory framework and considering mifepristone's safety record. Drugs with higher risks are on the US market without an FDA‐mandated REMS. Canada removed all restrictions on the use of mifepristone for abortion, which has not resulted in patient safety concerns. All pharmacists should be permitted to dispense mifepristone. The continued requirement for a mifepristone REMS in the US appears to be based more on politics rather than evidence.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.386
Threshold uncertainty score0.544

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.193
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it